When their cities got the European Cultural Capital designation, other countries were able to ask the question: "Is this a good thing?", and some, particularly the Dutch, pushed forward and asked: "Is the designation an EU propaganda exercise?" All we were really interested in was why we didn't have enough time and money to make sure we wouldn't be the "laughing stock of Europe."
In fact, the European Cultural Capital project, thought up by Greece's dynamic culture minister, was always intended to have political influence.
As John Myerscough writes in the first major study of the scheme, European Cities Of Culture And Cultural Months (1994): "The European Cultural Capital concept was intended to bring forward the cultural dimension of the work of the European Community and to give the Community a more attractive image." A designation was handed out to each of the member states by the Council of Ministers, and the so-called "first round" of Cultural Capitals ran until 1996. Real political pressure on the designation process was only obvious in the case of West Berlin, which was in 1988 still contested by the Soviet Union. As Myerscough reports: "For the Council of Ministers, designating West Berlin was a political decision to help the city in its exposed position."
However, since 1996, the designation process has been a ship without moorings, seemingly blown hither and thither by the winds of political interests. Rather than run a second round of cities from member states, it was decided to open up the designations of any European cities in which "democracy, pluralism and the rule of law" prevailed. "Nobody actually knows why the rules changed," says Bob Palmer, who was Director of the highly successful Glasgow 1990 year, and is now Director General of Brussels 2000. "There is no basis on which to make any judgement as to why the change was made. It's a free-for-all." He argues strongly that in the absence of firm rules about designation, "political considerations have been paramount".
He thinks the pressure of the trouble in Macedonia contributed to Thessaloniki's designation last year (as well as the Greeks' strong position as originators of the scheme), and his view that Weimar's designation for next year was political too is backed up by Myerscough's report: "Weimar was chosen because it sealed the re-unification of Germany and alluded to the birth of Goethe," he writes. "The rival idea was a joint nomination of Nuremburg and Cracow, which was conceived as an art of historical reconciliation." It's easy to see Stockholm's designation, won against hot competition from Prague, in starkly political terms. Sweden had applied for EU membership when it got the designation, and the campaign for a "yes" vote was always going to be tough going. The Social Democrats did a Uturn on Europe for economic reasons, however, and Sweden voted to join the EU by 52 per cent to 47 per cent in 1994.
Jans Sandqvist of the Stockholm's Cultural Capital team agrees that the designation came partly as a result of a PR drive on the part of the EU: "I think so," he says. "And also because we claim that Stockholm is the doorway to Eastern Europe. Sweden used to be the big power in the Baltic. We have cultural links with the Baltic states, which is a good thing for the EU. From Stockholm you can sail to Finland, the Baltic states, St. Petersburg . . . "
Designations begin to look more blatantly political when one considers the "Cultural Month" scheme, introduced in 1990, in which one city every year hosts a month-long cultural festival. Cracow, Graz (the second city of Austria, not in the EU at the time of the designation), Budapest, Nicosia, St. Petersburg, and Ljubljana have been designated, and this year the cultural month is in Linz in EU-intolerant Norway in September. The spectre of designations acting as bridgeheads to possible future member states is hard to dismiss.
Bob Palmer believes that a clear set of purely cultural criteria should be laid down for the designations, and the Council of Ministers is looking at the situation as a matter of some urgency because the designation process for the millennium years has proved so contentious. Because no agreement could be reached, eight cities will hold the title concurrently in 2000: Avignon, Bergen, Helsinki, Cracow, Prague, Santiago de Compostella, Rekyvik and Brussels. Palmer believes that multiple designations weaken a concept which has been very successful. There is disagreement about 20001 and he fears that "another compromise" may be reached.
